Dave: email discussion on ground
lists would affect the syntax of Core.

<AdrianP> we should keep
ground lists in Core

sandro: does not like the term
ground lists; has several possible alternative terms
... super-safe constructor list --- nobody sees reason for
it.

<AdrianP> I don't know the
term "supersafe" - never heared of it

chris: can people review Core
exclusive of list section?

<AdrianP> I think "ground" is
well defined in many logic programming text books

changkai: ok, will review Core
with the understanding that section on lists, and Harolds'
changes to xml schema, may change

<sandro> AdrianP, the reason
supersafe doesn't exist in literature is because it's not a
useful thing to do. None-the-less, it's what you've spec'd in
core.

chris: BLD document is not
affected by the lists issue

Harold: yes, BLD is ready for
review

<csma> yes

chris: How does SWC stand?

jos: I did everything, except for
two alternative semantics for connecting lists, plus did not
completely go through proofs in appendix, But these are not
crucial
... I did go through the OWL-2 specs

chris: what about DTB? Only thing
left is the numeric paths, to be discussed today.
... PRD. How does that stand?

csma: PRD is ready to be
reviewed. I still plan to move sections on built-ins and
conformance in front of XML, and do some other minor editorial
changes.
... for DTB, there is also discussion about built-ins
... that still needs to be done

Chris: FLD

<sandro> yeah, XSD went to
CR.

Harold: I think it's ready for
review; must check about new XSD spec, but this should not
affect review.

Sandro: should rule above be in
Core?
... as I understand the current Core specs, that would be a
syntax error, and I don't think it should be.
... It's a syntax error because lists don't take variables. But
this behavior is goofy.
... perhaps there should be a built-in for lists.

josb: two different
understandings of resolution at F2F.

<josb> List(ex:foo ?i)

jos: Sandro's understanding: safe
lists in Core; others' understanding was that inside list terms
there can be no variables

<AdrianP> yes, I added a
restriction for ground lists, which are variable free

Harold: it's not a restriction;
it's just that if there are no variables in the list, it's
automatically safe.

Sandro: no, this winds up not
being allowed.

Chris: what happens if we go to
the Core spec that Sandro wants?

Harold: we need both built-in and
function symbol for constructing lists

<AdrianP> we probably need a
kind of external list built-in anyway, e.g. to map Java lists
to RIF lists (at least from a practical point of view in
PRD)